]]>Only about one in eight American houses and businesses gets electricity from a cooperative — and on average, they pay about $500 less a year for the privilege.

Unregulated by public commissions and unfettered by shareholders, electricity co-ops answer to their customers, who elect the companies’ boards. This structure, and their smaller size, allows co-ops to be more flexible, coming up with new and innovative ways to embrace the future of energy, advocates say.

“We’re trying to power what we call a new way of thinking,” Gary Connett, direct of member services for Great River Energy, said at a Washington, D.C. event Thursday.

Great River Energy, which provides wholesale electricity to a group of Minnesota co-ops, is helping its members take Minnesota’s renewable energy standard (25 percent by 2025) in stride, adding wind power from neighboring North Dakota, as well as facilitating community and rooftop solar. In one project, customers can “subscribe” to a solar panel in a community array and receive a discounted large-scale ( 85- or 105-gallon) electric hot water heater. From an environmental standpoint, this program helps transition people off fossil-fuel sources. From the co-op’s standpoint, this is a way to make electricity demand more predictable.

Under the program, large hot water heaters also act as energy storage systems, helping the co-op decrease demand when electricity is at its most expensive, such as in the morning, when everyone is getting up. The co-op runs the water heaters at night, when North Dakota’s winds are howling, but air conditioners are low and lights are off.

Interestingly, the plan goes against a Department of Energy (DOE) initiative to phase out large hot water heaters — which have typically been seen as wasteful and inefficient. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) ushered a bill through in April to exempt electric co-ops from DOE’s plan.

“While other systems of storing energy undergo research and development, Minnesota’s cooperatives have these load management practices and technologies in place today to provide for a more reliable and economic system, and facilitate the integration of renewable energy resources,” Darrick Moe, president of the Minnesota Rural Electric Association, a Great Lakes customer, said in a statement about the bill.

The program is just one example of how electric co-ops are able to be flexible and forward-thinking in their approach to delivering electricity.

Electric co-ops are something of an American phenomenon. Still serving rural populations, the electric co-op model proliferated beginning in the 1930s, when nine out of 10 rural Americans still didn’t have power. For-profit utilities that served (and still serve) cities didn’t want to spend the money to build miles of infrastructure for just a few customers. A lending program under the Rural Electrification Administration, created in 1935 by then-President Roosevelt, allowed rural customers to band together and start their own companies. And they did — by 1953, 90 percent of U.S. farms were electric, according to NRECA, a national co-op organization.

Now, as the electricity sector — pushed by state and national goals intended to decrease the country’s carbon footprint — transitions to renewable energy sources, co-ops are better positioned to help their customers.

While some large utilities are fighting back against rooftop solar, a co-op in New Hampshire seamlessly threw out a limit on the number of people who could go solar, developing what they — and their customers — think is a fair rate for continuing to provide the infrastructure and reliability that solar panels fail to provide.

Last year, New Hampshire Electric Co-op (NHEC) was rapidly approaching the state-mandated cap on net metered customers — that is, customers who received payment for the electricity they put back on the grid. The co-op knew, though, that customers wanted to go solar. It also knew that it wasn’t viable for all its customers to be zeroing out their bills every week. Rather than enact a flat fee, the co-op analyzed transmission and distribution costs, which it will continue to pass along to customers, no matter how much electricity the customers sell back.

NHEC board member Kenneth Colburn chalked the process up to “NHEC’s willingness to take initiative — and, more importantly, the freedom that we had to take initiative that was provided by the co-op business model.”

That freedom to operate in their members interest is critical to solving the issues created by transitioning to new ways of doing things, Colburn said during Thursday’s event.

“Here we are, seven months, eight months, after the problem arose, and we have a solution,” he said.

]]>How Coal Companies Are Cheating Taxpayers Out Of Billionshttp://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/31/3686543/coal-program-high-level-review/
Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:42:47 +0000Claire Moser - Guest Contributorhttp://thinkprogress.org/default/2015/07/31/3686543//http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/31092616/20124344575_6e154092f2_b-321x214.jpg“We are committed to making sure we’re doing right by the American citizens and the American taxpayer,” Secretary Jewell said Thursday.

]]>Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell on Wednesday launched the first high-level review of the federal government’s coal program in more than three decades, noting concerns with the program’s environmental impacts and fairness to taxpayers.

“We are committed to making sure we’re doing right by the American citizens and the American taxpayer,” Secretary Jewell told a packed room in Washington D.C. as she kicked off the first in a series of public listening sessions to explore reforms to the outdated program. Following her call for an “honest and open conversation about modernizing the federal coal program” earlier this year, she emphasized the need to ask the “tough questions” about how the Department of the Interior (DOI) can make changes to “bring this program into the 21st Century.”

The DOI’s Bureau of Land Management has planned a series of five listening sessions across the country as the first step to raise rock-bottom coal royalty rates.

Although Secretary Jewell noted that the administration has undertaken major reforms to DOI’s oil, gas, and renewable energy programs, she said the agency had more work to do, including taking a “a hard look at the federal coal program” to consider impacts on the climate, increase transparency and competition, meet future energy needs and ensure that “taxpayers are getting the return that they are due from the development and use of our public natural resources.”

A large majority of the speakers at the Wednesday listening session — including leaders from national taxpayer organizations, government watchdog groups, Western landowner organizations, and conservation groups — called for major reforms to the program.

“I’ve had a ringside seat on federal coal management and valuation for the past 40 years,” Steve Charter, a Montana rancher and representative of the Western Organization of Resource Councils, said at the session. “The system is deeply broken and we welcome the opportunity to talk about solutions. Ending the giveaway at rock bottom prices and achieving greater transparency on valuation is absolutely critical.”

Currently, more than 40 percent of all coal in the United States comes from America’s public lands, primarily from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana. However, DOI’s outdated policies overseeing coal mining on public lands have been continually criticized for failing to ensure that coal companies pay royalties on the true market value of coal. In fact, recent investigations have shown that coal companies are exploiting loopholes in the program to intentionally avoid paying royalties and costing taxpayers more than $1 billion a year in lost revenue.

“Current practices shortchange taxpayers by failing to reflect the fair market value for the commodities we as taxpayers own and govern,” Ryan Alexander, President of Taxpayers for Common Sense, wrote in an op-ed on Wednesday. “There is enough evidence to suggest the DOI’s coal program is failing to ensure a fair return to taxpayers.”

Attendees sit at the listening session for the federal coal program on Wednesday, July 29, 2015.

CREDIT: Greenpeace

Despite these concerns and evidence that coal companies are taking advantage of policy loopholes, a representative of Arch Coal told the room that the federal coal program is a “tremendous success story, one that has generated tens of billions of dollars of value for American people in recent decades.”

Members of Congress, however, have continued to call for reform and to “end sweetheart deals for coal companies.” On a press call hosted by the Center for American Progress on Wednesday, Senators Tom Udall (D-NM) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Representative Matt Cartwright (D-PA) introduced legislation to close loopholes in the federal coal program and ensure coal companies pay royalties based on the market value of coal.

“What Senator Udall, Congressman Cartwright and I want to do is provide a simple, straightforward way to ensure that the American people get a fair return on publicly owned coal,” said Sen. Wyden.

Senator Udall echoed calls for reform, saying that “our broken system is costing taxpayers money that could be used to pay for schools, roads, local infrastructure, and many other priorities.”

In addition to the Coal Royalty Fairness Act in the Senate, Rep. Cartwright introduced similar legislation in the House, which directs funds to invest in “struggling coal communities throughout the Appalachian Region overcome the challenges associated with changing natural resources markets.”

The Department of the Interior plans to hold the rest of the listening sessions to explore potential reforms to the federal coal program throughout August in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico.

Claire Moser is the Research and Advocacy Associate with the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress. You can follow her on Twitter at @Claire_Moser.

]]>“Not today, Shell!” an anchor support yelled from a Portland bridge as 13 climbers hung below for the 29th consecutive hour.

Cheers and chants were heard from land and water around 7:30 a.m. Pacific Time Thursday, as a Royal Dutch Shell ship slowly turned around in the water and retreated from the bridge. The Arctic-bound ship stopped in its tracks Thursday during its second attempt to reach a Shell drilling site. The oil company aborted its first attempt early Wednesday morning, when Greenpeace activists rappelled off of St. John’s Bridge in Portland, Oregon with the support of assistants and “kayaktivists” on the water, two hours before the icebreaking vessel was scheduled to leave. The ship’s second attempt also failed.

The vessel, MVS Fennica, is meant to keep ice at bay during Arctic drilling and carries a crucial part of Shell’s spill response system, according to Kristina Flores, one of 13 anchor supports at the bridge, who documented the protest using Periscope.

“What we have on the water today is an eyesore,” she said. Activists considered the Fennica’s retreat a victory, but remained in position. Many climbers participating in the blockade, who risked arrest on felony charges, have access to social media. One live-tweeting climber posted when the ship retreated.

The Dutch company’s Arctic drilling plans have been the subject of controversy for many years. Most recently, hundreds of Seattle protesters on kayaks and small boats arrived in Elliott Bay to keep the company’s drilling rigs at the port. They held signs and banners similar to those held by Portland protesters, which read “Shell No” and “Save the Arctic.”

Now, protesters are calling on President Obama to halt plans for drilling in the Arctic — something the administration just gave Shell final approval for last week.

“This is President Obama’s last chance to wake up and realize the disaster that could happen on his watch,” Annie Leonard, executive director of Greenpeace USA, said in a statement. “There is still time for our President to cancel Shell’s lease to drill in the Arctic, living up to the climate leader we know he can be.”

The climbers say they’re ready to stay put until they’re certain the Fennica won’t go to the Arctic.

“We’ve been here for 29 hours, and we’re ready to be here for another 29,” Flores said. Every day that the ship’s departure is delayed is another step towards ending Shell’s Arctic drilling plan.

“The window for drilling is closing, because there’s only a certain number of weeks that there’s no ice there, so Shell is really under time pressure to get that boat up there and we’re doing everything we can to delay that,” Leonard said.

Activists think the Fennica, which arrived in Portland for repairs on a meter-long gash in the side of the ship, is not prepared for the harsh conditions of the Arctic. And despite a section on its website addressing its Arctic drilling plan, Shell hasn’t done much to diminish the opposition to drilling in the Arctic. In late 2012, its oil spill response system failed “under very calm, tranquil conditions,” according to environmentalist Todd Guiton. “If it can’t handle the best we have here [the Pacific Northwest], I really have my doubts it can handle even a little adversity in the Arctic,” he said.

Later that year, Shell ships experienced engine failures and discharged “oily waste” into the Alaskan Arctic. Miyoko Sakashita, oceans director at the Center for Biological Diversity, wrote that sudden swells, storms, and heavy fog common in the Arctic create an environment unsafe for drilling. That the Fennica didn’t make it to the Arctic safely initially creates concerns about its ability to safely support drilling.

Meanwhile, protesters continue to hang from the bridge in hammocks, equipped with plenty of food, water, and diapers, and are prepared to stay for several days. Portlanders even brought breakfast and coffee to them Thursday morning in support.

“This planet is why we’re here,” Flores said. “If we destroy it, we don’t have a place to inhabit. This is personal.”

]]>Obama Sends ‘Memo To America’ On The Biggest Thing A President’s Ever Done On Climate Changehttp://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/08/02/3687076/white-house-announces-final-carbon-rule/
Sun, 02 Aug 2015 13:07:05 +0000Ryan Koronowskihttp://thinkprogress.org/default/2015/08/02/3687076//http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/02004235/climatevideo-321x214.pngObama called it "the biggest, most important step we've ever taken to combat climate change."

]]>Early Sunday morning, the White House shared a video message narrated by President Obama that announced the Monday release of the final version of the Clean Power Plan.

Under the plan, the EPA will adopt a rule that regulates carbon pollution from existing power plants for the first time, and in the video, Obama called it “the biggest, most important step we’ve ever taken to combat climate change.”

Compared to the proposed rule, the new final version cuts more carbon pollution from the power sector, does it with more renewable energy and less natural gas, while providing more flexibility along the way to states trying to meet their targets.

The final version of the regulation, according to a senior administration official, will actually reduce power sector carbon pollution 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. This is more ambitious than the 30 percent reduction over the same period in the proposed rule.

In the proposed rule, renewable energy generation capacity was expected to be 22 percent in 2030. In the final rule, that share is projected to be 28 percent. Instead of the plan leading to a significant, early shift to natural gas, the projection for gas-fired power plant generation will instead flatten to a business-as-usual trendline.

The senior administration official said that this would largely be driven by a Clean Energy Incentive Program which would reward faster renewable energy development. States will get credits for electricity generated in 2020 and 2021 by renewable energy projects that begin construction right after they submit their compliance plans. It also awards double the credits for energy efficiency projects in low-income communities.

The proposed plan’s structure will remain largely the same as proposed. By 2030, each state must meet a certain emissions reduction target, custom-tailored to their current energy mix. The EPA does not implement a top-down solution across the country to cut emissions, or force specific coal plants to close. Every state can meet its targets however it wants — closing old coal plants, building more renewables, increasing energy efficiency, or working with other states to balance emissions and cuts through market-based systems like the cap-and-trade model already being used by the RGGI states in the Northeast.

The administration projects that the final rule’s shift to energy efficiency and renewable energy will drop the average American electricity bill $85 a year by 2030, and lower by 88 percent the premature deaths caused by fossil fuel energy pollution. Carbon pollution traps heat and worsens smog, which both trigger asthma and heart attacks.

The rule had been expected to give states an extra two years to begin cutting emissions, according to a timeline document posted to the EPA website last week. The Washington Post also reported that states will have more time to submit and begin implementing their plans to meet their targets — two more years, or until 2022.

The final regulations will also change so that state targets will not be based upon how much they could cut emissions through programs that improve energy efficiency for consumers.

EPA administrator Gina McCarthy is expected to sign the final plan during Monday’s ceremony. Though the ceremony was scheduled to take place on the White House South Lawn, the New York Times reported that the event may have to be moved inside due to high temperatures.

In the next week and over the next several months, the president will be taking his case to the public, focusing on how climate change is already harming Americans. He will speak at the 2015 National Clean Energy Summit in Nevada and will be the first American president to travel to the Alaskan Arctic at the end of the month. Obama is also scheduled to talk climate change with Pope Francis, who recently released an encyclical about climate change, when he visits Washington, D.C. in September. In December, the U.N. will host talks aiming for a global agreement on greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

But the president got a head start addressing the American people in the video released Sunday. Relying on the fact — “not the opinion” — that the climate is changing and “threatening our economy, our security, and our health,” he said it is time to act.

“Climate change is not a problem for another generation,” Obama said. “Not anymore. That’s why on Monday, my administration will release the final version of America’s Clean Power Plan.”

He noted that “power plants are the single biggest source of harmful carbon pollution that contributes to climate change.”

“But until now,” he continued, “there have been no federal limits to the amount of that pollution those plants can dump into the air. Think about that. We limit the amount of toxic chemicals like mercury and sulfur and arsenic in our air and water, and we’re better off for it. But existing power plants can still dump unlimited amounts of harmful carbon pollution into the air we breathe. For the sake of our kids, for the health and safety of all Americans, that’s about to change.”

Obama said that the administration had worked with states and power companies to ensure they have the flexibility to comply with the rule. Before releasing the proposed version of the rule last year, EPA said it had consulted with over two hundred groups over the course of well over one hundred meetings. This is in addition to 11 official public listening sessions.

Some of the trends the administration hopes to create with the plan are already happening — renewable energy capacity is growing dramatically, and this year natural gas replaced coal as the largest electricity generation source.

]]>According to documents obtained by the New York Times, negotiators for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement have finished the environmental chapter, one that emphasizes the broad region’s ecodiversity and calls for action on illegal forestry and wildlife trade. But environmentalists say the chapter likely does not have sufficiently binding language and that the TPP overall will make it more difficult to address climate change.

The proposed agreement reportedly requires the 12 nations — including the United States — to simply abide by wildlife trade treaties and current environmental laws. It also bans subsidies for unsustainable industries, such as boat building in over-fished waters, the Times reported.

“We expect that the environmental chapter will have a lot of nice-sounding language,” Ilana Solomon, director of the Sierra Club’s responsible trade program, told ThinkProgress. “It will mention the word whaling, it might mention shark-finning, but the actual obligations — what countries are required to do — will be very weak in many places.”

According to the Times, the environmental chapter does refer to the “long-term conservation of species at risk,” and “iconic marine species such as whales and sharks.” But it also reported that Japan has been pushing back against potential whale-hunting prohibitions.

Whatever language the negotiators finalize is the language Congress will have to vote on, under the terms of the fast-track authority Congress gave the White House in June. Some House Democrats warned this week that without adequate environmental safeguards, they will not approve the deal.

“A strong environmental chapter… is critical,” a group of 19 House Democrats wrote to the U.S. Trade Representative on Wednesday. “We cannot forego an opportunity to improve environmental protections, enforce conservation standards, and prohibit the illegal trade in wildlife, forest, and living marine resources to a degree that no level of foreign aid could accomplish.”

The representatives said they will not vote for the TPP if it does not prohibit trade of illegally taken wildlife and timber, which Solomon said was unlikely to happen.

“We expect the TPP environmental chapter is going to fall short of an actual ban,” she said.

The countries represented in the agreement encompass 40 percent of the world’s economy, including some of the world’s worst deforestation offenders. Illegal logging accounts for 50 to 90 percent of forestry activities in tropical forests, including in Southeast Asia.

Another key concern for environmentalists comes not from the environment chapter, but from other areas of the agreement. The TPP is expected to require the U.S. Department of Energy to automatically approve liquid natural gas (LNG) exports to the 11 partner nations, Solomon said.

“Requiring the U.S. to automatically approve exports is going to facilitate more fracking, more fossil fuel infrastructure, and more climate changing emissions,” she said.

Environmentalists have also long been wary that the TPP will pave the way for fossil fuel companies to sue for rights to extraction and will increase the trade of high-carbon sources such as coal.

“Let’s not suddenly forget why so many of us in the climate movement bitterly fought against fast-tracking this trade deal,” said Karthik Ganapathy, a spokesperson for environmental activist group 350.org.

“TPP tilts the playing field in favor of multinational fossil fuel companies even more, and makes it easier for them to dig carbon out of the ground. Loaded with provisions that would spread fracking across the world, and enable Exxon and Shell to throw multi-million dollar tantrum lawsuits at any government that dares to regulate carbon emissions, TPP was and is an absolute disaster for our climate,” Ganapathy said.

]]>After a showdown Thursday morning that was hailed as an environmentalist victory, Royal Dutch Shell’s Arctic-bound ship passed unobstructed under Portland’s St. John’s bridge just before 6 p.m. Pacific Time that day. The icebreaking vessel Fennica is on its way to Alaska to support Shell’s drilling efforts in the Arctic. Protestors hung from the bridge for 38 hours, obstructing the ship’s passage, before the U.S. Coast Guard and police removed them.

Greenpeace, who organized the protest and blockade, has been fined $2,500 for every hour that it delayed the Fennica’s departure, beginning Thursday at 10 a.m., local time. Eight hours of violation at $2,500 per hour would total $20,000. A motion filed by Shell requesting the federal court to impose a fine said the daily rate paid by the oil company for the ship is $59,288. The fines would have increased every day had protesters not been removed Thursday evening.

Protesters were asked to leave throughout the day by the Coast Guard, but they did not comply. “We’ve been here for 29 hours, and we’re ready to be here for another 29,” Greenpeace activist Kristina Flores said while broadcasting the protest on Periscope.

The 13 climbers were accompanied by anchor supports on the bridge, “kayaktivists” and swimmers on the river, and a crowd of protesters on the nearest dock. Authorities used boats and even “jumped into the water to physically [remove] protesters who left their kayaks,” the Associated Press reported.

The Fennica is designed to protect the drilling fleet from ice and carries the containment dome, a key component of Shell’s oil spill response system. It arrived in Portland last week for repairs on a meter-long gash in its side, and was headed back to the Alaskan Arctic when protesters created a blockade. Exploration and drilling plans could not go forward until the Fennica returned to the site.

Activists hoped to delay the ship’s departure until the drilling window closed, or until the Obama administration rescinded the exploratory drilling permits it gave to Shell last week. The administration has not issued any statements regarding the protest.

]]>More Than 180 Evangelical Leaders Endorse Obama’s Carbon Reduction Planhttp://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/31/3686725/evangelicals-carbon-reduction-letter/
Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:21:04 +0000Jack Jenkinshttp://thinkprogress.org/default/2015/07/31/3686725//http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/31124750/shutterstock_255188737-321x214.jpg"We see overcoming the climate challenge as one of the great moral opportunities of our time, a chance to fulfill the Great Commandments to love God, our neighbors, and ourselves," the letter read.

]]>More than 180 evangelical Christian leaders signed a letter this week backing President Barack Obama’s plan to reduce carbon emissions from power plants, the latest effort in a growing faith-based environmental movement to curb the effects of climate change.

On Thursday, theologically conservative faith leaders sent a letter to President Obama endorsing the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed Clean Power Plan (CPP), a sweeping, historic project unveiled in June and set to be officially released next week. Signers of the letter, which was posted on the Evangelical Environmental Network’s website, framed their support in explicitly moral terms.

“We see overcoming the climate challenge as one of the great moral opportunities of our time, a chance to fulfill the Great Commandments to love God, our neighbors, and ourselves,” the letter read. “It is God’s love that calls all of us to take on this challenge. That is why we write to offer our support and encouragement for your efforts to overcome the climate challenge.”

We see overcoming the climate challenge as one of the great moral opportunities of our time, a chance to fulfill the Great Commandments to love God, our neighbors, and ourselves.

Signatories included pastors, teachers, and evangelical thinkers, such as National Latino Evangelical Coalition president Rev. Gabriel Salguero, bestselling Christian author Rev. Brian McLaren, and prominent evangelical theologian Dr. David Gushee. The letter also cited several professors affiliated with conservative Christian schools such as Wheaton College, Calvin College, North Point University, and Oral Roberts University.

The group lauded the potential economic and health benefits of the CPP, which will likely improve public health and reduce energy costs for most Americans by cutting carbon pollution by 30 percent from 2005 levels. It also drew a connection between a “pro-life” position and support for green initiatives, noting that “nearly 230,000 pro-life Christians” have contacted the EPA to express support for the plan.

“[Obama’s] Climate Action Plan … when fully implemented, will: (1) position America to lead the world in the coming clean energy revolution; (2) create good jobs here in America, (3) reduce pollution that fouls our air and makes our water impure, (4) protect the health of our children and the unborn, and (5) build resiliency to the consequences of climate change both here and in vulnerable poor nations,” the letter read.

The effort reflects a growing form of conservative Christian environmentalism. Although evangelical Protestants are historically more likely than most Americans to deny climate change, scores of evangelical leaders have begun calling for their fellow believers to embrace “creation care” — a theological framework that focuses on faith-based concern for the environment. Meanwhile, evangelical scientists such as Dr. Katherine Hayhoe have become leading activists within the environmental movement. Earlier this month, a group of more than 200 evangelical scientists sent a letter to Congress demanding legislation that would reduce carbon emissions and protect the planet.

Evangelicals are also increasingly active participants in ecumenical and interfaith efforts to combat climate change. Conservative Christians insisted President Obama discuss climate change with Pope Francis when the two met met last year. Several evangelical leaders recently added their names to a similar letter addressed to Congress, which expressed support for the pontiff’s encyclical on the environment and demanded that lawmakers introduce legislation to curtail the impact of human-caused climate change. In addition, several pastors from the Evangelical Environmental Network are scheduled to meet with Vatican officials in August to discuss climate concerns.

]]>On Thursday afternoon, the Senate’s energy committee sent the first wide-ranging energy bill in over six years to the senate floor, but not before weighing it down with an array of provisions that ensure opposition from many environmentalist groups. The bill, as well as any amendments Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell consents to, could receive votes after the August summer recess.

The main piece of legislation, the “Energy Policy and Modernization Act of 2015,” does not directly address wind and solar energy, sources that comprise the epitome of “modern” energy — over half of new generating capacity came from wind and solar in the first half of 2015. The bill instead focuses on fossil fuels and infrastructure: natural gas pipeline permitting, authorizing the main federal conservation fund, job training, updating the grid, as well as a push on energy efficiency. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed it with an 18-4 vote and many statements of good faith from Democrats and Republicans. Sens. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Mike Lee (R-UT), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) were the four to vote against it.

With the congressional August recess looming after next week, and an incredibly busy legislative fall greeting Congress when it returns, this bill is also expected to be on the docket — though with less of a profile than the Iran nuclear deal, Planned Parenthood funding, the anticipated final carbon rule from the EPA, and other fights on the budget. With so much yet to be decided, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that the Republican Congress’ fight with President Obama could lead to another government shutdown.

Still, the energy bill served as a proxy for many of the senators on the committee to engage in some old-fashioned bipartisan legislating. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who chairs the committee, called the successful effort to pass a bipartisan bill on to the full Senate an “impressive journey,” where “no one’s getting everything they want, for sure.”

The committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), said it was “the first step in the long but important journey” to work on significant energy legislation. Cantwell’s approach has been to deal with “essential” updates to national energy policy to prevent things like blackouts and update the grid to be able to handle more renewable energy sources, while addressing more controversial subjects later.

The drive to make this a bipartisan energy infrastructure bill meant that many amendments from both sides of the aisle were voted down or refused. The committee refused to include amendments about the most notorious proposed energy infrastructure project in the country, the Keystone XL pipeline. A large majority of the committee voted down an amendment offered by Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) that would eliminate Congress’ role in choosing how to appropriate the Land and Water Conservation Fund. However, even an amendment offered by Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) addressing coal supply emergencies failed, despite praise from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), a coal advocate who joked about Franken’s acknowledgment of the need for coal.

Green groups largely oppose the bill because it focuses so much on increased fossil fuel production and mining permits, while interfering with federal energy efficiency programs, and a mandate to phase out fossil fuels in federal buildings, according to a letter they sent the committee earlier this week.

“The committee seemed to forget that a forward looking energy policy must include a rapid transition to clean, renewable energy,” said Friends of the Earth’s Kate DeAngelis in a statement. “The bill, instead, remains focused on rewarding the fossil fuel industry for their campaign contributions.”

Energy Efficiency

The package contains the Portman-Shaheen energy efficiency bill, which famously died last year after being weighed down with many unrelated amendments. Murkowski congratulated Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) again, joking “perhaps third time’s the charm.” The energy efficiency advocacy group Alliance to Save Energy said in a statement that it “unequivocally supports and applauds” the inclusion of Portman-Shaheen in the package, but it “vehemently objects to” another provision “that unduly hampers energy efficiency gains by delaying the establishment of new efficiency standards for furnaces.” It urged the Senate to adopt the compromise worked out in a House version of the bill.

The committee adopted an amendment that delays the implementation of efficiency standards for commercial refrigeration for a short time in order to allow manufacturers to use climate-friendly refrigerants. A Franken amendment to implement a slowly-rising energy efficiency resource standard was rejected by the full committee on Tuesday.

Fossil Fuel Exports

The panel also voted 12-10 to approve a separate bill that would lift the ban on exporting crude oil, in place since the 1970s. That bill would also speed up liquefied natural gas exports and increase offshore drilling.

The close vote to lift the crude oil export ban also came with additional provisions to expand oil and gas drilling efforts in the Atlantic and the Arctic. Jacqueline Savitz, the U.S. vice president of Oceana, the world’s largest international oceans advocacy group, said it was a “massive give-away to Big Oil and a slap in the face to coastal communities that have vocally opposed offshore drilling.”

Democrats opposed the bill, but Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and Sen. signaled they may be open to supporting it if Republicans supported extending renewable energy tax credits set to expire. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)’s amendment to require an economic study on what exporting natural gas passed.

On Thursday, Sen. Angus King (I-ME) told Murkowski that one of the underlying bills the committee considered could very well be called the “No Fossil Fuel Left Behind Act,” raising concerns that it was “totally unbalanced.” The committee voted down on party lines his amendment to require an environmental review before the approval of a natural gas export terminal. He voted for the broader energy package, however.

No Solar Or Climate

Sanders used his position on the committee to introduce amendments that continued his push on solar energy development and climate action. The first, the Low Income Solar Act, would provide job training for the solar workforce and support organizations working on expanding low-income resident access to solar energy. It failed 9-13, with only Sen. Manchin crossing party lines to vote with the Republican majority.

The second was a Sense of Congress that climate change is real, caused by human activity, there isn’t much time to reverse it, and the consequences of inaction are dire.

“I think, for those who are planning to vote against the amendment, speak to your kids, think about your grandchildren,” Sanders told his colleagues Wednesday. “Because I think that history will record you on the very, very, very wrong side of this enormous issue.”

It was voted down with the same result as Sanders’ solar amendment.

The package also included a provision promoting clean vehicle technology R&D investment. A bill promoting renewable energy development on public lands was offered and withdrawn, though with the promise that it would be included on the senate floor.

The bill’s ultimate fate, as is the case with anything in congress, lies with what other controversial amendments get added to it on the senate floor.

]]>Iowa Governor Terry Branstad told reporters Tuesday that Des Moines Water Works — a private utility that provides water to some 500,000 residents in the Des Moines area — should “just tone it down” when it comes to monitoring water pollution from agriculture.

“The Des Moines Water Works ought to just tone it down and start cooperating and working with others, like Cedar Rapids is doing, and other communities in the state of Iowa,” Branstad reportedly said when asked if the state government would work to help Des Moines Water Works customers impacted by the utility’s expected 10 percent rate increase.

Water Works claims that the rate hikes are necessary to cover the increased costs of water treatment due to nitrate pollution, which comes from largely unregulated fertilizer runoff from surrounding farmland. According to the Des Moines Register, Water Works has spent $1.5 million for nitrate removal since December of 2014, and plans to spend up to $183 million more for new nitrate removal equipment built to keep up with high levels of pollution.

The EPA allows up to 10 milligrams of nitrates per liter in public drinking water — anything higher than that is considered a threat to public health. The Des Moines and Raccoon rivers, from which the Des Moines Water Works pulls its water, both have exhibited levels in excess of federal standards, a trend that’s mirrored in major rivers across the state. According to an April report by the Des Moines Register, nitrate levels across Iowa’s major rivers have more than tripled, increasing from about 2 milligrams per liter on average in 1954 to more than 7 milligrams per liter between 1954 and 2010.

“It’s unmistakable. The long-term trend is decidedly upward,” Keith Schilling, a research scientist at the Iowa Geological Survey at the University of Iowa, told the Des Moines Register. Researchers say that the rise of row-cropping, farm drainage tiles, and the loss of perennial crops have helped make nutrient runoff an issue in Iowa.

In response to high nitrate levels, the Des Moines Water Works announced in January of this year that they would sue three neighboring counties that have failed to properly manage the nutrients applied to their farmland.

“When they build these artificial drainage districts that take water, polluted water, quickly into the Raccoon River, they have a responsibility to us and others as downstream users,” Bill Stowe, general manager of the Des Moines Water Works, told Iowa Public Radio in a January interview.

But taking aggressive action like this, Branstad said Tuesday, has alienated Des Moines Water Works from state officials and legislatures, many of whom represent districts where agriculture is the primary economic driver. In each of the three counties that the Des Moines Water Works is suing (Buena Vista, Calhoun and Sac counties), farms account for 98 percent of the surface land.

“If they want to cooperate and work with us, they are much more likely to get assistance and support,” Branstad said. “If they are continuing to sue and attack other people, that is not doing to get them the kind of assistance and support they would like to have.”

Branstad contended that the state has taken steps to reduce nitrate pollution through a set of voluntary measures known as the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. The Des Moines Register survey of nitrate pollution did show a slight decline in nitrate levels in recent decades, perhaps due to farmers employing more conservation practices.

“I think we in the state of Iowa want clean water and we want to do everything we can,” Branstad told reporters. “We have a nutrient reduction strategy. We are working on a cooperative and collaborative basis.”

But Graham Gillette, chairman of the Des Moines Water Works Board of Trustees, told the Des Moines Register that Branstad’s comments were “hurtful and derogatory.”

“There is no one in a better situation to help with the water situation in the state than the governor, and I am just baffled why he is not interested in even participating in the conversation,” Gillette said.

]]>Jeb Bush Parrots Frank Luntz Climate Script, Just As His Brother Did A Decade Agohttp://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/30/3686267/jeb-bush-luntz-climate-script/
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 20:31:08 +0000Joe Rommhttp://thinkprogress.org/default/2015/07/30/3686267//http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/AP_061106019815-321x214.jpgYou can expect many conservatives critical of the Clean Power Plan to start using the poll-tested words "technology" and "innovation" over and over.

]]>The White House is gearing up to announce the final carbon pollution standards that power plants will have to meet in EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP). And that means you can expect many conservatives critical of the plan to start using the poll-tested words “technology” and “innovation” over and over and over.

For instance, Bloomberg BNA just interviewed GOP presidential contender Jeb Bush about the CPP and his own energy, environment and climate strategy. He said, “Technology, innovation and discovery should play a major role in preserving a clean and healthy environment.”

Wait, that wasn’t Jeb. That was Frank Luntz in his famous 2002 memo to conservatives and the Bush White House explaining that the best way to pretend you care about the climate and the environment — while opposing regulations that might actually do something to reduce pollution — was to blather on about “technology and innovation.”

What Jeb actually said was “I’m confident that with sensible and balanced policies from Washington, American innovators and entrepreneurs will pioneer a new generation of technology that improves our environment, strengthens our economy, and continues to amaze the world.

Wait, that wasn’t Jeb either. That was his brother, President George W Bush, in 2008 climate remarks parroting Luntz’s advice for the umpteenth time.

What Jeb actually truly really said was “Generally, I think as conservatives we should embrace innovation, embrace technology, embrace science. It’s the source of a lot more solutions than any government-imposed idea.”

Yes, it’s Orwellian that Bush keeps saying conservatives should “embrace science” given that they have actually chosen to embrace anti-scientific climate denial as I discussed in May the last time Jeb trotted out those meaningless two words.

Now Jeb is adding in the “technology and innovation” mantra popularized by his brother. And who can blame him? They are both marvelous, glittering things. Of course, because we’ve ignored the science for a quarter century, “technology and innovation” are not magic wands that can preserve a livable climate without strong government programs to spur deployment — such as a price on carbon or EPA carbon pollution standards. But they are both marvelous, glittering things we can all agree on.

And that is precisely why they are a cornerstone of Luntz’s poll-tested euphemisms for “we want to sound like we care about the climate, we just don’t want to do anything about it”:

Technology and innovation are the key in arguments on both sides. Global warming alarmists use American superiority in technology and innovation quite effectively in responding to accusations that international agreements such as the Kyoto accord could cost the United States billions. Rather than condemning corporate America the way most environmentalists have done in the past, they attack their us for lacking faith in our collective ability to meet any economic challenges presented by environmental changes we make. This should be our argument. We need to emphasize how voluntary innovation and experimentation are preferable to bureaucratic or international intervention and regulation.

Yes, progressives do like to argue that because of successful American innovation and technology development efforts — much of it backed by the federal government — it is now super-cheap to slash carbon pollution. Of course, we like to argue this point because that’s what all of the major independent scientific and economic analyses show, and so that’s what every single major government in the world agrees is actually true (see here).

Team Bush, however, is just really good at staying on message. As I wrote way back in 2007, the “technology trap” is where clean energy technology is used as an excuse to further delay action, rather than as a reason to foster immediate action on climate change and the environment.

Luntz himself reiterated his advice in an early 2005 strategy document “An Energy Policy for the 21st Century“ writing, “Innovation and 21st-century technology should be at the core of your energy policy.” Luntz repeated the word “technology” thirty times in that document.

Then, in an April 2005 speech describing his proposed energy policy, Bush repeated the word ‘technology’ more than forty times. Business Week pointed out that Bush was following Luntz’s script and noted “what’s most striking about Bush’s Apr. 27 speech is how closely it follows the script written by Luntz earlier this year.” The article, titled “Bush Is Blowing Smoke on Energy,” also pointed out “the President’s failure to propose any meaningful solutions.”

The Luntz script seems to have worked for George W. It remains to be seen if it will work for Jeb, too.

]]>If you just readtheheadlines, it looks clear that the Environmental Protection Agency suffered a loss in court this week.

On Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals told the agency that it must loosen some of its restrictions on air pollution that crosses state lines. In 13 states, the court ruled, the EPA’s limits on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions that drift over into other states were too strict. Now, the EPA must go back and rewrite how those states should comply with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, also known as CSAPR (pronounced “casper”).

That’s obviously not great news for the agency, but in a statement to ThinkProgress, the EPA said it was “pleased” with the result.

Indeed, for the EPA, there are two silver linings within Tuesday’s ruling. The more obvious one is that, despite the fact that it has to go back and re-do some of it, the rule itself was upheld. Brought by a number of states, the court case had been trying to eliminate the rule entirely, arguing that the EPA didn’t have the authority to tell them to reduce their emissions for the benefit of other states. The D.C. Circuit rejected that argument, noting the Supreme Court had strongly affirmed the rule last year.

In other words, the agency may have to re-write some states’ emissions targets, but it doesn’t have to re-do the entire thing. And while it’s re-writing those parts, the 13 states still have to comply with the rule.

“EPA is pleased that the court decision keeps the Cross-State Rule in place so that it continues to achieve important public health protections,” an agency spokesperson said in an email. “The Cross-State Rule was promulgated to address a serious problem and continued implementation of the rule will lead to significant benefits for human health and the environment.” The EPA estimates the rule will achieve $280 billion in annual health benefits by preventing up to 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 19,000 cases of acute bronchitis, 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 1.8 million sick days a year.

The second silver lining is less obvious. Tuesday’s ruling, some attorneys say, adds a bit more padding to the idea that courts like to uphold EPA regulations most of the time — even if they find the regulation to be partially flawed. For example, when the Supreme Court found flaws with the EPA’s Mercury Air Toxics rule last month, it didn’t invalidate the rule — it merely sent it back to the D.C. Circuit for review. The D.C. Circuit could very well invalidate the rule, but some attorneys say it’s likely that it will be upheld, and the EPA will be told to make some fixes.

The fact that courts have been wary to invalidate EPA rules is a good sign for the agency’s controversial climate regulations, which are expected to be finalized as soon as next week. Because once those regulations are finalized, they’re expected to be subject to a barrage of lawsuits seeking to invalidate them, both from the coal industry and from coal-heavy states.

But environmental groups are confident that the EPA will come away from those legal challenges largely unscathed.

“EPA has an excellent track record in court, and the Clean Power Plan should be sustained against expected attacks,” said David Doniger, director of the Climate and Clean Air Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a press release on Thursday.

In that same statement, Sierra Club Chief Climate Counsel Joanne Spalding agreed. “EPA has won each round to date and its winning streak is likely to continue because the Clean Power Plan is on solid footing,” she said.

Of course, litigation is often unpredictable. As with Tuesday’s ruling on CSAPR and last month’s ruling on the mercury regulations, there is always a chance that a court could find a legal problem with the EPA’s climate rule. But if those rulings are any indication, it’s less likely that a legal problem would result in a full repeal of the landmark rule.

“It often is the case when rules are challenged that the agency might not come away with 100 percent on everything,” Howard Fox, an Earthjustice attorney who worked on the CSAPR case, told ThinkProgress. “But that doesn’t mean it’s a loss. You have to look at the big picture.”

]]>Agriculture Might Be Emitting 40 Percent More Of One Greenhouse Gas Than Previously Thoughthttp://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/30/3686264/nitrous-oxide-agricultural-emissions-underestimated/
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 19:43:51 +0000Natasha Geilinghttp://thinkprogress.org/default/2015/07/30/3686264//http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/shutterstock_151273463-321x214.jpgA new study from the University of Minnesota found that emission levels from nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas, have been severely underestimated.

]]>Synthetic fertilizers are used throughout agriculture — and especially in the United States’ Corn Belt — to help plants grow. But the fertilizers also emit a greenhouse gas known as nitrous oxide (N2O) that is almost 300 times more potent, pound for pound, than carbon dioxide.

Nitrous oxide emissions have historically been calculated in two ways: either by adding up the amount of nitrogen used as fertilizer (known as the bottom-up method) or by taking measurements from the air (known as the top-down approach). But these two techniques haven’t always yielded compatible results, and regional measurements taken with a top-down approach showed more nitrous oxide emissions than in the bottom-up models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, leading researchers to speculate that the IPCC was likely underestimating global nitrous oxide emissions.

Researchers at University of Minnesota wondered where the discrepancy in the two models came from — what was the top-down model measuring that the bottom-up models were missing?

The answer, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, came from looking at N2O emissions across Minnesota not just from the soil, but also from streams and rivers, where nitrogen fertilizers can often end up due to drainage and runoff.

The researchers found that when these river and stream systems are taken into account, estimates of nitrous oxide emissions tended to increase. The researchers also noticed a strong relationship between the size of the stream or river and its emissions, finding that small streams close to land had the highest emissions.

“Even very small amounts of N2O can be very harmful from a greenhouse gas balance perspective,” Peter Turner, a PhD candidate in the University of Minnesota’s Department of Soil, Water, and Climate, told BBC News. “We found that there was a nine fold underestimation with streams in the area, which translates to about a a 40 percent underestimation of the agricultural budget.”

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, about 74 percent of nitrous oxide emissions in the United States come from agricultural soil management. To mitigate emissions, scientists suggest improving a crops’ ability to absorb the nitrogen that is applied to the soil, as nitrogen that remains in the soil increases the potential for nitrous oxide emissions.

But this new study suggests that a better understanding of how nitrous oxide emissions interact with streams and rivers could also help researchers and farmers develop better strategies for nitrous oxide mitigation.

“We identified an important relationship between the size of the stream and its potential to emit nitrous oxide that can be used to scale up emission estimates,” Turner said in a press statement. “Understanding the riverine nitrous oxide source is an important step forward for understanding the global nitrous oxide budget.”

Anita Ganesan from the University of Bristol told BBC News that the study could have global implications, helping areas around the world with similar intensive agriculture schemes — like Europe, India, or China — better account for their nitrous oxide emissions.

“In the global context, this could also have large implications for regions of the world where there are large agricultural sources and where we may not have the measurement coverage to assess emissions using atmospheric measurements,” she said. “Through this study, we may be able to improve ‘bottom-up’ models to better account for these hotspot emissions.”

]]>An environmental group is suing the state of California’s oil agency for not incorporating certain information into its fracking rules — information that included warnings of the risks fracking poses to drinking water and the environment.

In the lawsuit, the Center for Biological Diversity (CDB) states that, though California’s fracking law SB 4 mandated that the state complete an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for fracking, the EIR was “fundamentally flawed” and didn’t incorporate information from a separate statewide report on fracking. That report, which was released after the EIR was finalized, “identified a substantial number of new and more severe risks and harms from well stimulation, including threats to California’s water supplies … and the health risks suffered by millions of Californians who live near oil and gas wells and are exposed to dangerous air pollutants,” the lawsuit states. By not including this independent statewide report on fracking into its EIR, California violated the law, the lawsuit alleges.

According to the lawsuit, the deadline for the state’s report on fracking was January 1, 2015, but the report didn’t come out until July 2015 — meaning that it was too late to “meaningfully inform” the EIR.

“The whole point of the deadline was that the scientific review would be fully used in the EIR,” Kassie Siegel, director of the CBD’s Climate Law Institute, told ThinkProgress. “We had a promise from the legislature is that we’d have a real scientific review and a real report, and they’d make a decision based on science, and that didn’t happen.”

The Center for Biological Diversity is asking the state to halt all new permits for well stimulation, which includes traditional hydraulic fracturing as well as acid fracking.

The state’s report recommended that oil and gas development near homes, hospitals, and schools be halted, and it also warned of the dangers of shallow fracking — a method that drills wells less than 2,000 feet deep and that’s used in 75 percent of California’s fracking. According to the lawsuit, the report recommended that permits for shallow fracking be denied unless the state can adequately prove that the method won’t harm groundwater. Siegel said that there was “no way” that California could prove shallow fracking was safe.

“When Governor [Andrew] Cuomo reviewed the science, he banned fracking,” she said, referring to New York’s decision to ban the oil and gas extraction technique. The fact that the scientific report wasn’t incorporated into the EIR means that Governor Jerry Brown’s office didn’t adequately review the science of fracking.

“Any rational agency that considers these findings would ban fracking,” she said.

California’s SB 4, which was signed into law in September 2013, requires oil and gas companies to list the chemicals they use in the fracking process online, but has come under fire from environmentalists, who say the law doesn’t go far enough to protect the state from fracking. Earlier this year, for instance, an investigation found that the California Department of Conservation had been allowing oil companies to inject wastewater into state aquifers. CBD and the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit in an attempt to force the state to stop allowing this practice.

“Right now, Californians are completely unprotected from fracking and other dangerous oil activities,” Siegel said. “We haven’t received any protection from fracking at all. We have more information and we were promised that this information would be used…that promise was broken.”

]]>Lions Aren’t The Only Big Cats Disappearing From The Worldhttp://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/30/3686049/tiger-tiger-burning-bright-but-on-the-verge-of-extinction/
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:32:15 +0000Ari Phillipshttp://thinkprogress.org/default/2015/07/30/3686049//http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Hunting_tiger-321x214.jpegThe inspiration of William Blake's famous poem is in more danger than ever of dying out.

]]>Lions, tigers, and … just lions and tigers. It’s been a big week for both. While lions captivated the public eye with the unsavory killing of Zimbabwe’s beloved Cecil the lion, this week was actually supposed to be about tigers. In fact, Wednesday was International Tiger Day. And while lion lovers don’t have much to feel good about, tiger admirers feel on the verge of desperation.

First, early in the week a census was released that revealed that there were only around 100 tigers left in Bangladesh’s Sundarbans forest, the world’s largest mangrove forest. This is far fewer than experts originally thought, with the previous census a decade ago recording some 440 tigers. The Sundbarans is a World Heritage Site and one of the last remaining strongholds for the majestic cats. They are called Bengal tigers after all, and this is Bangladesh.

As Agence France-Presse reports, the reason for the low numbers has to do as much with the methodology used for the count as it does with the tigers’ suffering population. While in the past pugmarks, or footprints, were analyzed, this time hidden cameras documented the cats’ movements. Tapan Kumar Dey, Bangladesh’s wildlife conservator, told Agence France-Presse that the year-long survey that concluded in April found a population ranging between 83 and 130, giving an average of 106 tigers.

Camera trap image of wild Sumatran tiger, 2006.

CREDIT: Wikimedia Commons

Across the border in India, some 74 tigers were recently counted in the Sundarbans on that side of the border. There are believed to be some 2,226 tigers living in India with smaller populations in Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, China and Myanmar. In a rare instance of positive news, the tiger population in India has actually rebounded by more than 30 percent since 2010, when it was determined to be 1,706. It reached an all-time nadir of 1,411 in 2006. Indian environmental officials have attributed this success to the creation of government-staffed tiger reserves.

According to the Guardian, tigers’ natural Indian habitat, “tropical evergreen forests, deciduous forests, mangrove swamps, thorn forests and grass jungles,” have almost disappeared outside of these reserves, of which there are 48.

According to the World Wildlife Fund, wild tiger populations are at an all-time low, having fallen some 97 percent in a little over a century. A few as 3,200 live in the wild today.

To add human-caused insult to human-induced injury, it turns out that sea level rise could wipe out a large portion of remaining tiger habitat in the Sundarbans. A post by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in honor of International Tiger Day states that “without mitigation efforts, projected sea level rise — nearly a foot by 2070 — could destroy nearly the entire Sundarbans tiger habitat.”

“This area harbors Bengal tigers and protects coastal regions from storm surges and wind damage,” IUCN said in a post. “However, rising sea levels that were caused by climate change threaten to wipe out these forests and the last remaining habitat of this tiger population.”

In a statement, IUCN Director General Inger Andersen said the impacts of this devastating loss range far beyond tigers and their habitat.

“The fate of the tiger is intrinsically linked to the fate of the forests and grasslands it inhabits and in turn, the fate of the people who rely on these resources for their food and livelihood,” he said. “Resolving this human-tiger conflict epitomizes the challenge of modern-day conservation — how to allow people and wildlife to live side by side, to benefit from each other.”

This has been a rough week for animal lovers, especially those fond of big cats. Perhaps it is appropriate to end on a poem.

The Tyger
By William Blake
1794

Tiger, tiger, burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare seize the fire?

And what shoulder and what art
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand and what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? What dread grasp
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?

When the stars threw down their spears,
And water’d heaven with their tears,
Did He smile His work to see?
Did He who made the lamb make thee?

Tiger, tiger, burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

]]>An unprecedented amount of human poop is festering in Rodrigo de Freitas Lake and Copacabana Beach, where hundreds of swimmers and boaters are scheduled to compete in next year’s summer Olympics and Paralympics, an Associated Press investigation has found.

Published Thursday by reporters Brad Brooks and Jenny Barchfield, the investigation found “dangerously high levels of viruses and bacteria” from untreated sewage in the country’s Olympic venues. The high levels of contamination risk seriously sickening Olympic athletes, some of whom have already experienced fevers, vomiting, and diarrhea, according to the report. One expert told the AP that, if athletes ingest even three tablespoons of the water, they have a 99 percent risk of infection.

“What you have there is basically raw sewage,” said John Griffith, a marine biologist who examined and evaluated the AP’s investigation. “It’s all the water from the toilets and the showers and whatever people put down their sinks, all mixed up, and it’s going out into the beach waters.”

Brazilian officials assured the AP water will be safe in time for the 2016 games, which is something they’ve been saying for a while. Indeed, this is far from the first time the public has been warned about the foulness of Brazil’s Olympic venues. But the investigation made it hard to see how that would happen considering the country’s history of water pollution from its less-than-modern sewage system. The AP describes it like this:

Extreme water pollution is common in Brazil, where the majority of sewage is not treated. Raw waste runs through open-air ditches to streams and rivers that feed the Olympic water sites.

As a result, Olympic athletes are almost certain to come into contact with disease-causing viruses that in some tests measured up to 1.7 million times the level of what would be considered hazardous on a Southern California beach.

Despite decades of official pledges to clean up the mess, the stench of raw sewage still greets travelers touching down at Rio’s international airport. Prime beaches are deserted because the surf is thick with putrid sludge, and periodic die-offs leave the Olympic lake, Rodrigo de Freitas, littered with rotting fish.

What’s more, people are already swimming in these waters. People hoping to compete in the Olympics are scheduled to perform a triathlon qualifier event at Copacabana on Sunday, and rowers are scheduled for a Wednesday test run at Rodrigo de Freitas Lake. Nearly 1,400 athletes are expected to be exposed to those waters next year, the AP report said.

Water is a huge problem for Brazil — not only because of contamination, but because of an intense, long-standing drought. The drought not only adds stress to the country’s water supply during a major sporting event, but presumably means there’s little officials could do to dilute contaminated waters.

This is not the first time poor environmental conditions have threatened a major sporting event. Just last month in Santiago, Chile, the Copa America soccer tournament coincided with dangerous smog levels in the city. Extreme heat exacerbated by climate change caused suspension of outdoor play at the Australian Open last summer. And when Brazil hosted the World Cup last year, experts warned that the effects of climate change could threaten players’ health in the future.

]]>Numbers Numb, Stories Sell: The Secrets Of Climate Communicationshttp://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/30/3678680/numbers-numb-stories-sell/
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:21:35 +0000Joe Rommhttp://thinkprogress.org/default/2015/07/09/3678680//http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/AP_890610923900-321x214.jpgPope Francis has helped jumpstart a broader conversation on climate change. If you want to join in, here are some tips, via the June 23 communications panel at the White House Public Health and Climate Change Summit.

]]>Pope Francis has helped jumpstart a broader conversation on climate change. It is long past time for everyone who understands the dire nature of the climate threat — and the supercheap cost of action — to join the conversation.

If you want to learn some of the “secrets” of effective messaging, a good place to start is the climate communications panel at the June 23 White House Public Health and Climate Change Summit. The panel discussion, “Actionable Information: From Science to Social Media,” is one of the best I’ve ever participated in.

My favorite quote from the panel — the one I will be repeating most often — belongs to Maibach:

Numbers numb, stories sell. We don’t deal well with numbers, it tends to suspend our sense of emotion, but we respond very, very well to stories. Individual stories will almost always trump a litany of statistics.

“Numbers numb, stories sell,” is a classic piece of rhetoric, just four simple words, but delivering a memorable message with the aid of several figures of speech. It is a mantra that science communicators in every field should live by.

The figures of speech are some of the essential “secrets” to persuasive, memorable, and effective communications.

The most powerful figure of speech is a metaphor, a point made by both Churchill and Lincoln. I quoted one extended metaphor that Pope Francis used in his recent climate Encyclical: “God has joined us so closely to the world around us that we can feel the desertification of the soil almost as a physical ailment, and the extinction of a species as a painful disfigurement.”

The Encyclical is stuffed with powerful, yet simple quotes — a must read in its entirety for climate communicators. As I said in the video, “one of the keys to effective public speaking is quoting people more interesting than you are.”

So here’s one more quote from the Pope, an age-old sentiment that seems strangely radical in the world we now live: “We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it.”

]]>A new study from researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology examines how states can reduce carbon pollution cheaply while also keeping household energy prices low. Titled “Low-Carbon Electricity Pathways for the U.S. and the South,” the report found that reducing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants — a requirement of the EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan — could be done cost effectively through a combination of renewable energy and energy efficiency policies as well as a modest carbon price.
To minimize costs, the country needs to reduce its coal consumption more rapidly.

“To minimize costs, the country needs to reduce its coal consumption more rapidly, continue to expand its gas-fired power plants, but temper this growth with aggressive policies to increase energy efficiency and renewable energy,” Marilyn Brown, the project’s lead researcher and the Brook Byers Professor of Sustainable Systems in the School of Public Policy at Georgia Tech, told ThinkProgress.

The researchers also found that complying with the Clean Power Plan, which aims to reduce emissions from U.S. power plants by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, would produce substantial collateral benefits. These include lower electricity bills, greater GDP growth, and significant reductions in SO2, NOx, and mercury emissions.

“The strong push on energy efficiency also enables GDP to rise above the business-as-usual forecast,” said Brown. “The U.S. increases its exports and decreases its imports as a result of being more competitive.”

The Obama Administration’s final Clean Power Plan rule is expected in early August. This study is the second one in a number of days to spell out how complying with the rule could end up saving customers money on their energy bills. Another study published by the energy research firm Synapse Energy Economics last week found that energy bills in 2030 could be $35 per month lower under a “Clean Energy Future” scenario as compared to business-as-usual. These studies are significant not only for their research value, but also because they push back on the oft-employed talking point that the Clean Power Plan — and renewable energy deployment in general — will cause electricity rates to skyrocket.

“As energy is used more efficiently, non-competitive power plants can be retired, construction of new coal plants can be deferred, and transmission and distribution infrastructure investments can be delayed, all of which would lower rates and therefore lower the energy bills of all consumers,” Brown said. “This is a counter-intuitive finding to some who keep hearing from critics that have claimed that it will significantly increase the electricity bills of American families.”

The Clean Power Plan allows for state-level flexibility in meeting the carbon reduction targets, which vary according to state. In the proposed rule, Washington needs to cut its emissions by 72 percent in 2030 compared to 2012, while Kentucky only needs to reduce power plant emissions by 18 percent. This variability is meant to reflect both the potential reduction options available to the state as well as reductions expected from existing policies.

“With the compliance flexibilities woven into the CPP, states have an array of options before them,” the authors of the Georgia Tech report write. “On the supply side, they need to assess opportunities to shift the mix of fuels used to generate electricity in their state. On the demand side, they need to consider options for decreasing electricity consumption through energy-efficiency programs and policies.”

States need to prepare for a future where solar energy plays a much stronger role.

The researchers modeled the ways that options could be combined to achieve the desired pollution cuts without increasing electricity prices. Brown said they used a state-of-the-art analysis tool called the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) that the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) also uses.

“It is arguably the most influential energy modeling tool in the U.S.,” she said. “It’s a ‘bottom up’ model with lots of resolution about specific supply- and demand-side technologies.”

Brown and her small team of researchers found that the combination of lower renewable energy costs, a $10 to $20 price metric per ton of CO2 emissions, and integrated energy efficiency policies could curtail emissions growth substantially from the power sector — but that in isolation, none of these would achieve the desired cuts.

The current carbon price per metric ton in California, where a statewide carbon market was recently set up, is $12.67. France introduced a domestic carbon tax in 2014 that started at $7.69/metric ton, but will rise to around $16 by 2020 for large emitters.

While none of these steps on their own will achieve the desired outcome, the researchers found that reduced capital costs for renewables and additional carbon costs from fossil fuel emissions will create “a synergistic force for driving growth in renewable energy.”

This force will cause large increases in renewable energy generation when compared to the reference case — by 44 percent in the United States overall and 76 percent in the South. This is not true of all forms of renewable energy, such as hydropower and nuclear, but specifically applies to wind, biomass, and solar.

For modeling purposes the study’s researchers did detailed solar cost analysis and determined that by 2030, installed costs of solar would be approximately $1.75/Watt for utility-scale PV, $2/Watt for commercial-scale PV, and $2.50/Watt for residential-scale PV in 2010 dollars.

When it comes to energy efficiency, the authors used a reference case in which electric power generation will grow at an annual rate of 0.8 percent between 2012 and 2030, increasing 17 percent overall during that period. Interestingly, they found that in the absence of a carbon price or stronger energy efficiency measures, growth in solar power could actually cause electricity use to increase more than the reference case over that same time period.

“This phenomenon underscores the oversimplification of simply seeking to cut energy consumption,” they write. “To the extent that the energy consumed is solar or other renewable resources with limited environmental or other externalities, net social welfare would also increase with greater consumption.”

However, the researchers found that the combination of a small carbon price, energy efficiency policies, and cheaper solar costs could allow the South to achieve an 18 percent reduction in energy demand and the overall United States a 16 percent reduction by 2030. They also found that this approach would lower electricity bills significantly, causing rates to rise only 5 or 6 percent over the time period as compared to the projected 7 to 13 percent.

“Energy efficiency programs and policies need to be revved up, along with monitoring and verification schemes and energy benchmarking,” said Brown. “States need to prepare for a future where solar energy plays a much stronger role, both rooftop systems and solar farms, with a wide array of different financing and ownership schemes.”

]]>Remembering Jack Gibbons, The Rarest Of U.S. Science Advisorshttp://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/29/3685619/jack-gibbons-science-advisor/
Wed, 29 Jul 2015 21:57:09 +0000Joe Rommhttp://thinkprogress.org/default/2015/07/29/3685619//http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/GibbonsClinton-321x214.jpgRenowned physicist, former presidential science advisor and lifelong energy efficiency champion Jack Gibbons died on July 17 at the age of 86. He was the only person who was chief science and technology advisor to both Congress (1979-1992) and then the White House (1993-1998).

]]>John H. (Jack) Gibbons — renowned physicist, former presidential science advisor, and lifelong energy efficiency champion — died on July 17 at the age of 86. He was the rarest of scientists, and, I believe, the only person in U.S. history to be the chief science and technology advisor to both Congress (1979-1992) and then the White House (1993-1998).

The Gingrich Congress made it impossible for anybody to match that achievement in 1995 when they shut down the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), which Jack had previously directed for over a decade.

Former Vice President Al Gore worked with OTA when he was in Congress, and “had the privilege of working even more closely with” Gibbons when they were both at the White House. “It was Jack’s optimism and imagination that did so much to help the United States face the difficult issues of our time, including the climate crisis,” Gore told ClimateProgress in a statement. “He was utterly unique and irreplaceable.”

Gibbons was a friend and colleague. My time at the Department of Energy overlapped with his at the White House. He wrote the Preface for my 2004 book, “The Hype About Hydrogen: Fact and Fiction in the Race to Save the Climate.” One of his lines is all too prescient:

Given our current choices and policies, I am drawn to the observation that “mankind would rather commit suicide than learn arithmetic.”

Gibbons was a very prescient scientist. He had a prestigious career at Oak Ridge National Laboratory starting in 1954, ultimately becoming “the group leader in nuclear geophysics/astrophysics.”

Then in the late 1960s — years before the first oil shock woke everyone up to the need for a better energy policy — he “pioneered studies on how to use technology to conserve energy and minimize the environmental impacts of energy production and consumption.” He became the lab’s director of environmental programs in 1969.

In 1973 Gibbons was named the first Director of the Federal Office of Energy Conservation. He was a life-long champion of this most important and virtually limitless but most neglected source of cheap, pollution-free energy. In 2007, he won the Alliance to Save Energy’s first “lifetime achievement in energy efficiency” award — one of many, many awards he won during his long career.

In 1979 Gibbons was picked to direct the bipartisan U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, a position he held for 13 years. During his time, the OTA routinely produced reports on energy, the environment, health, and national security of such high quality that they became the “Bible” or “benchmark” study in the field.

In 1993, he became Bill Clinton’s science advisor and and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. I asked the current occupant of that position, John Holdren, to comment on Gibbons’ legacy:

His influence in the Clinton White House was evident in the Administration’s signing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (which, alas, the Senate has never ratified, even though the United States has not conducted a nuclear-explosive test since 1992); in increased cooperation with the former Soviet Union to keep nuclear materials from falling into the wrong hands; in ramped-up government activity to address global climate change; in new initiatives in biomedical research; and much more.

Gibbons was instrumental in the launch of the interagency Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles with U.S. automakers. That initiative was a major factor in motivating Toyota to develop its breakthrough hybrid vehicle, the Prius, ultimately leading to a host of U.S. hybrid vehicles.

Vice President Gore explains that “Jack had a rare and uncanny ability to look at critical large-scale issues affecting our planet through scientific, technological, social and ethical lenses and present a definitive overview to help policy makers better address such issues and better anticipate future problems.”

Holdren adds that Gibbons was “a generous mentor (to me and many others); a superb motivator and manager of talented teams of colleagues; a caring friend; and just a remarkably unflappable, upbeat, good-hearted human being, with an unfailing sense of humor that kept all around him laughing with him and at ourselves. I will miss him terribly.” As will I and a great many others.

His family notes, “Donations in his honor and memory will be gratefully accepted by The Union of Concerned Scientists, Population Action International, and the Sierra Club.”

]]>Germany Just Got 78 Percent Of Its Electricity From Renewable Sourceshttp://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/29/3685555/germany-sets-new-renewable-energy-record/
Wed, 29 Jul 2015 19:19:26 +0000Ari Phillipshttp://thinkprogress.org/default/2015/07/29/3685555//http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/shutterstock_185946890-321x214.jpgThe new record exceeds the previous May, 2014 record by as much as 5 percentage points.

]]>On Saturday, July 25, Germany set a new national record for renewable energy by meeting 78 percent of the day’s electricity demand with renewables sources, exceeding the previous record of 74 percent set in May of 2014.

According to an analysis by German energy expert Craig Morris at the Energiewende blog, a stormy day across northern Europe combined with sunny conditions in southern Germany led to the new record, the exact figures of which are still preliminary. Morris writes that most of Germany’s wind turbines are installed in the north and most of its solar panels are in the south.

If the figures hold, it will turn out that wind and solar generated 40.65 gigawatts (GW) of power on July 25. When this is combined with other forms of renewables, including 4.85 GW from biomass and 2.4 GW from hydropower, the total reaches 47.9 GW of renewable power — occurring at a time when peak power demand was 61.1 GW on Saturday afternoon. To bolster his analysis, Morris points to early figures from Agora Energiewende, a Germany energy policy firm, that have renewables making up 79 percent of domestic power consumption that day.

Renewable sources accounted for 27.8 percent of Germany’s power consumption in 2014, up from 6.2 percent in 2000. The expansion of renewables and another weather phenomenon — a relatively mild winter — led to Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions falling for the first time in three years in 2014, a 4.3 percent year-over-year drop. Greenhouse gas emissions are now down to their lowest level since 1990, according to analysts at Agora Energiewende.

This made 2014 a big year for Germany’s renewable energy transition, known as Energiewende, which requires the phasing out of nuclear energy by 2022 and reducing greenhouse gases at least 80 percent by 2050. The government also wants the at least double the percentage of renewables in the energy mix by 2035.

In response to the Fukushima nuclear meltdown in Japan in 2011, Germany decided to shutter its nuclear power operations, causing the country to rely more on coal as it transitions to renewables. Currently coal still accounts for some 44 percent of the country’s power generation.

In 2014, Germany had nine nuclear power plants with a total output of 12,702 megawatts, making up nearly 18 percent of the country’s electricity demand. In order to eliminate nuclear power by 2022, many worry that Germany will have to turn to fossil fuels like coal and oil to help bridge the transition to renewables, causing a spike in greenhouse gas emissions.

Osha Gray Davidson, author of Clean Break, a book about Germany’s transition to clean energy, told TakePart that for such a large industrialized country to get 28 percent of its power from renewable sources is “pretty amazing,” and that Germany is a good model for the United States.

“Manufacturing accounts for much more of the German economy than the American economy, and they have 80 million people — much larger than a country like Denmark, which gets more of its power from renewables but has a much smaller industrial base, and has a population of five and a half million people,” he said.

Currently, the United States gets about 13 percent of its energy demand from renewable sources, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

As more and more wind turbines and solar panels come online there is a major technology push to create better forecasting software and to increase the efficiency and enhance the location of these forms of power. IBM and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) recently announced that they are working on a producing solar and wind forecasting that’s at least 30 percent more accurate than conventional methods.

“There is good reason to believe that with better forecasts, it might be possible to push solar’s energy contribution up to 50 percent [by 2050],” IBM Research Manager Hendrick Hamann recently said about the United States. “As we continue to refine our system in collaboration with the DOE, we hope to double the accuracy of the system in the next year. That could have a huge impact on the energy industry — and on local businesses, the economy and the natural environment.”

]]>New Report From Anti-Poverty Group Debunks Claim That Coal Is Good For Poor Peoplehttp://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/29/3685523/coal-doesnt-help-electricity-poverty/
Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:31:25 +0000Samantha Pagehttp://thinkprogress.org/default/2015/07/29/3685523//http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/AP_785604419189-321x214.jpgOxfam Australia is calling out Prime Minister Tony Abbott's pro-coal policies and misleading comments with a new report on poverty.

]]>The coal industry and its supporters often argue that coal is still a relevant energy source because it’s cheap, and cheap electricity reduces energy poverty.

But on Tuesday, Oxfam Australia directed an entire report to Australia’s government, saying that for the one billion people living without electricity, coal is more expensive than renewable energy sources.

“Renewable energy is a cheaper, quicker, and healthier way to increase energy access,” the report states. “Coal is ill-suited to meeting the needs of the majority of the people living without electricity.”

Despite the coal industry’s contention, the cost of infrastructure, fuel, and maintenance makes coal a more expensive way to bring power to developing nations than installing wind or solar — even without considering the health and environmental effects.

The report, from a branch of one of the oldest and most-respected development organizations, also found that using coal hurts people living in poverty by exacerbating climate change and polluting the air. Through case studies, the report shows the benefits of renewable energy development around the world, including in South America, India, and China. Saying Australia is being left behind on this important transformation, the group urged the government to move both its domestic and international policies toward renewable energy.

Under the leadership of Prime Minister Tony Abbott, the Australian government has exhibited climate denialism and pro-coal policies.

Last fall, Abbott called coal “good for humanity” at an event for a new coal mine. “Coal is vital for the future energy needs of the world,” he said.

He was echoing an industry narrative that says coal helps people who wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford electricity. The coal industry has even launched a campaign to promote the message that coal helps lift people out of poverty.

“In developing countries, far too many people live without light or heat for their homes or access to life-saving medical technologies. And in developed nations, too many people are being forced to choose between paying power bills and buying prescriptions or food,” Advanced Energy for Life, funded by coal giant Peabody, says.

This theory has been roundly criticized. And, in fact, pro-renewable and efficiency programs have been shown to decrease electricity bills in developed nations. Across the globe, 85 percent of people who live without electricity are located in rural areas. For many people, microgrids, not giant power plants, represent the most economical, efficient, and clean way to turn the lights on, according to the International Energy Agency.

Of course, no report on coal and poverty would be complete without recognizing not only coal’s impacts on climate change, but also climate change’s out-sized impact on the global poor.

“Burning coal is the single biggest contributor to climate change. As such, it is creating havoc for many of the world’s poorest people,” Oxfam Australia writes in the report.

The group points out that extreme weather, including heat, floods, droughts, and cyclones, affect vulnerable communities in particular. In addition, coal pollution is thought to cause more than 100,000 premature death each year in India alone, Oxfam reported.

“Increasing coal consumption is incompatible with protecting the rights and interests of poor communities in developing countries,” the report concludes.

The part of the report that addresses climate change might not worry Abbott. The prime minister has been outspoken in his rejection of the science of climate change, and he has implemented the policies to prove it. In 2014, Australia became the first nation to repeal a carbon tax. Abbott’s government has also killed the government-funded climate change commission, abandoned emissions targets, and directed a public university to hire a climate denier to head a “climate consensus center.”

During the last election, when Liberal (what Americans would call Conservative) Abbott took the reins after six years of Labour leadership, the country’s economy had suffered huge setbacks. The global slowdown in 2008 opened the doors to Abbott’s 2013 win. In 2013, Australia was exporting 300 million tons of coal, three times as much as it was 25 years prior.

So despite the broad support from Australia’s public for renewable energy, Australia’s overall emissions were — and are — quite high.

“The greenhouse emissions from our coal exports nullify any planned emission reductions within Australia, many times over,” the Sydney Morning Herald reported at the time.

]]>The Science Of Why You Are So Upset About Cecil The Lionhttp://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/29/3685758/science-of-cecil-outrage/
Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:12:32 +0000Judd Legumhttp://thinkprogress.org/default/2015/07/29/3685758//http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/thelion-321x214.jpgThe science behind what you are probably feeling right now.

]]>The brutal killing of Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe by an American dentist has been met with a torrent of anger worldwide. Many celebrities, including Judd Apatow, Mayim Bialik, Olivia Wilde, and Ricky Gervais, have weighed in to express their disgust. The deceased lion was trending on Twitter.

Intuitively, the uproar over the lion’s murder makes sense. The story is awful.

But it does raise a tricky question: Why, exactly, are people so upset about the death of this specific animal?

To answer this question, ThinkProgress consulted Ernest Small, a Ph.D with the Canadian government who specializes in biodiversity. Small has recently published two peer-reviewed papers on the topic of why humans favor some animals over others.

People don’t like most species of animals

Small writes that “most humans are… not just ignorant of but indifferent to almost all of the species on the planet.” In fact, people are “biophobic” meaning they are “slightly to extremely negative towards the majority of species they encounter.”

For example, “Amphibians are the most threatened of the groups of vertebrate animals with perhaps one-third of species on the verge of extinction.” But most people don’t really know or care about it because “most are unattractive.”

“A memorable Grimm’s fairy tale required a young girl to kiss a toad to find her Prince Charming, reflecting the disgust that most people have for these species,” Small writes.

Similarly, “the majority of the world’s threatened species are insects, but except for butterflies and bees, most are usually perceived very negatively.”

Instead, even most “animal lovers,” reserve their positive feeling about animals to those that “have characteristics valued by the human psyche.”

The animals that people do like

According to Small, “the public, politicians, scientists, the media and conservation organisations are extremely sympathetic to a select number of well-known and admired species, variously called flagship, charismatic, iconic, emblematic, marquee and poster species.” If you are curious about what animals qualify, just visit a zoo. Most, if not all of the animals there are “very useful, very attractive, or very entertaining.”

The kind of species that are favored by humans vary but certain characteristics are particularly helpful:

The most universally admired physical characteristic is size: huge creatures elicit great respect, whereas the majority of species, which are small, tend to be ignored. Glamorous appearance is critical for sympathetic attention, and there are numerous features such as colour and impressive architecture that contribute to what makes a species attractive.

There is a name for these kind of animals: “charismatic megafauna.” These animals “are usually at least the size of a large dog, and generally larger than a man. They are mostly very photogenic.”

Why Cecil generates so much emotion

“You can’t get much more charismatic than a lion,” Small noted in an interview with ThinkProgress. “Here we are as humans getting very excited about charismatic animals. We never think about all the pain we cause to billions of sentient creatures.”

Another helpful feature of Cecil: he has a name. Many of the traits we admire in animals are those that bear some similarity to humans. Lions already have plenty of human-like qualities, forward facing eyes and a strong parent-child bond for example. An actual human name is icing on the cake.

“We are blind to so much suffering that goes on with so many animals yet so cognizant of this,” Small said.

Despite studying the issue extensively as an academic, Small isn’t immune from the same feeling everyone else has about Cecil’s death. “I was disgusted frankly. If there was a lynch mob I’d probably join it,” he said, acknowledging the irony.

Selective outrage, Small posits, is human nature and is not limited to the animal world. For example, “If we see a baby being treated cruelly. If we see a wino or a bum who is in obvious need of help we tend to look the other way. It’s just our nature.”

The consequences

Favoring a small number of animal species and ignoring most others is not without its advantages. The use of iconic animals is extremely important to the fundraising efforts of conservation groups. “Save-the-Tiger campaigns are popular, and have attracted considerable funds,” Small notes. In 2010, Leonardo di Caprio donated $1 million to save tigers. Funding like this can enable conservations of large areas of land that can end up benefiting more species than just tigers.

Small argues that we don’t need to “suppress” our empathy to animals like Cecil, but rather “moderate our prejudices with understanding for the value of all species, for the long-term welfare of humanity and our planet.”

]]>It’s Not Just Cecil: Here Are 3 Other Vulnerable Species Threatened By Poachinghttp://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/29/3685545/cecil-lion-other-poached-animals/
Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:57:00 +0000Emily Atkinhttp://thinkprogress.org/default/2015/07/29/3685545//http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/14687370670_68490c058c_k-321x214.jpgThe circumstances of Cecil's death are far from unique.

]]>The internet is awash with heartbreak after learning that Cecil, one of Zimbabwe’s most well-known and well-loved lions, was shot and killed by an American hunter this month.

The 13-year old African lion, who sported an iconic black mane and a GPS collar, was reportedly lured out of his sanctuary in Hwange National Park, a protected area where visitors ofter gathered to observe him. After team of hunters tracked Cecil for two days, he was allegedly shot by a man from Minnesota — a dentist named Walter J. Palmer, who reportedly paid $54,000 for the hunt, which he believed to be legal. Cecil was then beheaded, and “his corpse was left to rot in the sun.”

Cecil’s death and the resulting outrage appear unprecedented. But the circumstances of his death are far from unique. Across Africa and Asia, endangered and vulnerable animals are illegally hunted — either for the goods their bodies provide, or, like Cecil, purely for sport.

In all these cases, the impacts stretch beyond the killing of one animal. In Cecil’s case, the International Fund for Animal Welfare noted that was the dominant male in his pride. That may cause a ripple effect, the organization said, “Because he no longer can protect his pride from rogue lions … meaning, in all reality, these hunters’ actions may lead to the deaths of many African lions, which are a species threatened with extinction.”

So, with Cecil and African lions in mind, here are three vulnerable species threatened further by poaching.

African Rhinos

In this photo taken Monday, Oct. 13, 2014, a white Rhino from Kube Yini Private Game Reserve in KwaZulu-Natal is captured and moved to a truck after its partner was killed by poachers near the town of Hluhluwe, South Africa.

CREDIT: AP Photo/Robin Clark

African rhinos, both black and white, are hunted prolifically both for their horns and for the thrill. Some of this hunting is legal, with proceeds going back to conservation efforts. In fact, the U.S. government recently approved two American citizens’ requests to bring home the black rhinos they killed in Namibia.

Still, much of the hunting of white and black African rhinos is not legal. “The African rhino is under serious threat from poachers who have intensified their search of rhino for their horns since 2007, driven by growing market demands in Asia,” says Joseph Okori, the head of the World Wildlife Fund’s African Rhino Program, on the WWF website.

According to National Geographic, there are about 4,000 to 5,000 black rhinos left in the world, a huge decrease from the approximate 70,000 in the 1960s. The WWF says that even though recent conservation efforts have been successful, the continent is still losing hundreds of rhinos each year to poaching. “Continued poaching could see Africa’s rhinos slide over the brink, into extinction,” the organization states.

African Elephants

In this Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2014 photo, an activist inspects one of two dead Sumatran elephants allegedly snared and killed by poachers for their tusks, in Tebo district of Jambi province on Sumatra island, Indonesia.

CREDIT: AP Photo

Illegal poaching is a “crisis” for African elephants, according to a recent report in the Guardian. Despite a 46-country treaty to control imports of illegal ivory, poachers have killed 100,000 African elephants in just three years, according to a recent study. Poaching is also problem for Asian elephants, though less so, as only the male species have tusks.

Though illegal poaching is one of the largest problems facing the African elephant, the species is also subject to trophy hunting by wealthy people. Like African lions and white rhinos, African elephants are allowed to be hunted for a price, a portion of which is supposed to go to conservation efforts. But as National Geographic has pointed out, some critics say that the legally hunted animals can find their way into the black market, and that the funds that are supposed to be used for conservation sometimes are co-opted by corruption.

The WWF estimates that if conservation action “is not forthcoming, elephants may become locally extinct in some parts of Africa within 50 years.” The Obama administration recently restricted ivory trade into the U.S. to combat the problem.

Pangolins

Two rescued pangolins sit in a basket during a news conference in Bangkok, Thailand, Thursday, June 7, 2012. Thai customs rescued 110 pangolins worth about $35,500 that they say were to be sold outside the country as exotic food.

CREDIT: AP Photo/Sakchai Lalit)

IFL Science has called the pangolin “The world’s most-traded, least-known mammal … poached 82 times more than rhinos and a whopping 1,000 times more than tigers.” Indeed, the armadillo-like animal is is believed to be the most trafficked animal in the world. As ThinkProgress has pointed out in the past, they are killed because of the widespread belief that they have powerful medical benefits in Traditional Chinese Medicine, though there exists no medical evidence supporting these beliefs.

It’s unknown how many pangolins are left in the world, but scientists say they are shrinking fast due to intense illegal poaching. As CNN reported, the most conservative estimates are that 10,000 pangolins are trafficked illegally each year — though one advocacy group estimates those numbers could be anywhere from 116,990 to 233,980 per year.

]]>What Walter Palmer Did Wasn’t Huntinghttp://thinkprogress.org/sports/2015/07/29/3685598/walter-palmer-cecil-the-lion-hunters-conservation/
Wed, 29 Jul 2015 16:06:17 +0000Alan Pykehttp://thinkprogress.org/default/2015/07/29/3685598//http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/AP_466759735127-321x214.jpgHunters have long been a force for preservation and an ally to environmentalists in the United States. But in Africa, the threat of extinction for big game animals alters that alliance.

]]>Two men will face charges in a Zimbabwe courtroom on Wednesday that they took bribes from an American dentist to guide him on an illegal hunt of a beloved local lion. But Walter Palmer, the Minneapolis dentist who shot the lion, faces no charges — and may have doomed hunters’ hopes to be seen as agents of conservation rather than destruction.

Palmer’s killing of a male lion named Cecil might never have come to light were it not for the GPS collar the animal wore, which allowed academics at Oxford to track down the carcass and discover the hunters. Since then, the local outfitters who took Palmer on the hunt have been charged, and Palmer has released a statement laying full blame for the illegality of the hunt on his guides.

The story has sparked vast outrage at Palmer and at trophy hunting more generally – and the proper role of trophy hunters in conserving rapidly-dwindling big game species in sub-Saharan Africa is less clear-cut than it might seem.

Palmer took an unsporting and incompetent approach to Cecil, according to reports. The dentist and his guides reportedly used bait to lure the animal out of the park land where it would have been illegal to shoot him and used a spotlight to illuminate Palmer’s shot.

Hunting ethics revolve around swift killshots that do not cause suffering. Cecil was still alive more than a day and a half after Palmer’s initial, well-lit bow-and-arrow shot failed to kill.

“I think it’s an abomination, for a number of reasons,” lifelong hunter, journalist, and author Jonny Miles told ThinkProgress. “On the specifics of the hunt, with baiting, with using lights, and also killing a lion that has a pride – all of it just adds up to an incredibly unethical, unscrupulous way of going about this.”

Hunters pride themselves on having the patience and skill to fell an animal immediately with a single shot. “An ethical hunter is one who seeks out the best possible shot that results in the quickest possible kill,” Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) public relations director Mark Holyoak told ThinkProgress. Holyoak wouldn’t discuss the reports about Palmer’s hunt, but stressed the more general importance of being swift and sure.

Attempting a shot that’s beyond your own skill level is abhorrent to many, because it puts the personal glory of a long-range kill over the imperative to honor your prey by adhering to the principles of “fair chase.” The reported details of Palmer’s hunt do not match those principles.

“This is much closer to assassination than hunting,” Miles said, adding that a bad shot is “the most traumatic thing that can happen in a hunt.” For him and many other hunters, it’s imperative to eat what you kill. Antlers make a nice trophy, but “the trophy aspect is subordinate to the experience, to the knowledge required and the knowledge gained, to the very ancient relationship that you are experiencing with an animal that you are hunting for food.”

“Hunting shouldn’t be about ego,” he said. “It should be the opposite. It should be about awe at the natural world.”

If the dentist’s approach to hunting is not representative of the best practices of the hunting community, his incompetent and illegal killing of Cecil may not be a fair gauge for the overall relationship between trophy hunting and conservation of the rapidly-dwindling lion population. With other species of game, hunters play a vital role in maintaining a healthy population – and in conserving wilderness spaces that might otherwise be encroached by development and pollution.

Just 20,000 African lions survive today, down from a population of about half a million in the middle of the 20th century. Killing a single lion in 2015 is mathematically equivalent to murdering 400,000 of the planet’s roughly eight billion people. And because Cecil’s six cubs will likely be killed by the next male to take over the pride, Palmer’s wayward arrow and days-later mercy shot may be as devastating to the lion population as the death of three million people would be to humanity.

There are two main competing strategies for bringing the lion population onto a sustainable path. Each relies on putting a clear, consistent, and high economic value on the lives of lions and other big game animals that are threatened by poaching. To convince a shepherd he’s better off not killing the lion that’s eaten a dozen of his animals in the past year, conservationists have to put resources in his hands that are tangibly worth more than the value he’s lost to the lion’s appetite.

All sides agree about that strategic goal. The question is how to achieve it.

Trophy hunters argue that the best way to win minds is to put a very high price on a license for hunting lion, and use the money that big game enthusiasts spend on the licenses to furnish development resources in the relevant communities. But while trophy hunting licenses do generate significant raw sums of revenue for the governments that sell them, almost none of that cash ever makes it to the communities that are supposed to benefit, according to a 2013 analysis by Economists At Large. The review found that just 3 percent of hunting company revenues actually reach the communities adjacent to hunting ground. “The vast majority of their expenditure does not accrue to local people and businesses, but to firms, government agencies and individuals located internationally or in national capitals,” the study found.

Other conservationists insist that the hunters’ logic doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, and advocate for almost absolute preservation of lion lives. The resources required to persuade locals to tolerate lions should come from eco-tourism, they argue, which provides a steady trickle of money that will add up to more over the course of the lion’s life than any one-time money shower from selling a hunter a license. (Licenses can cost as much as $70,000, but even that high-end price values the life of one of a rare and dwindling animal species at about the same as a nice BMW sedan.) The Obama administration has thrown some weight behind this point of view recently by making it all but impossible to trade elephant ivory in the United States – a move that cracks down on trophy hunting in favor of the eco-tourism approach.

In a lengthy 2008 dissertation, Hassanali Thomas Sachedina analyzed the breakdown of the revenue flow from hunting licenses further and found both that there is too little money actually coming into local governments from the licenses. What does come in generally gets spent on “political expediencies” rather than actual community development work.

One Tanzanian villager explained the problem on the ground succinctly to Sachedina: “They are finishing off the wildlife before we’ve had a chance to realize a profit from it.”